I have been reading Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries. On p 138-139 it states
As already mentioned, some scholars find it unthinkable that Paul could have circumcised Timothy. Referring to 1 Cor 7:17–20 Haenchen claims that this text “shows that Paul wanted nothing to do with the supplementary circumcision of a Christian.” The crucial point in the text mentioned is the following statement: “Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision” (1 Cor 7:18b). This cannot, however, be used as an argument against the historicity of Timothy’s circumcision. The words rendered “uncircumcised”—in Greek ἐν ἀκροβυστία—literally means “with a foreskin” and is [p 139] used as a name for the Gentiles (m. Ned. 4:11). But Timothy was a Jew—and was treated as such.
Reidar Hvalvik, “Paul as a Jewish Believer—According to the Book of Acts,” in Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries, ed. Oskar Skarsaune (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007), 138–139.
The problem is that in Neusner, Jacob. The Mishnah : A New Translation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988 there is no Nedarim 4.11. I'm wondering whether the error is in Hvalvik or whether he is citing a different version of the Mishnah.
georgegfsomsel
יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
Or a different numbering system?
Either way, Google found me this: http://www.sefaria.org/Rosh_on_Nedarim.4.11?lang=en. Does that help you in any way?
Looks like a great site, btw. I'll have to check it out tomorrow. Now I need to get at least some sleep before church.
"The Christian way of life isn't so much an assignment to be performed, as a gift to be received." Wilfrid Stinissen
Mac Pro OS 10.9.
fgh: Or a different numbering system? Either way, Google found me this: http://www.sefaria.org/Rosh_on_Nedarim.4.11?lang=en. Does that help you in any way? Looks like a great site, btw. I'll have to check it out tomorrow. Now I need to get at least some sleep before church.
Unfortunately, this does not appear, at first glance, to be pertinent to the discussion though it may be an instance of versification as I attempted to imply.
George Somsel:I have been reading Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries. On p 138-139 it states As already mentioned, some scholars find it unthinkable that Paul could have circumcised Timothy. Referring to 1 Cor 7:17–20 Haenchen claims that this text “shows that Paul wanted nothing to do with the supplementary circumcision of a Christian.” The crucial point in the text mentioned is the following statement: “Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision” (1 Cor 7:18b). This cannot, however, be used as an argument against the historicity of Timothy’s circumcision. The words rendered “uncircumcised”—in Greek ἐν ἀκροβυστία—literally means “with a foreskin” and is [p 139] used as a name for the Gentiles (m. Ned. 4:11). But Timothy was a Jew—and was treated as such. Reidar Hvalvik, “Paul as a Jewish Believer—According to the Book of Acts,” in Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries, ed. Oskar Skarsaune (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007), 138–139. The problem is that in Neusner, Jacob. The Mishnah : A New Translation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988 there is no Nedarim 4.11. I'm wondering whether the error is in Hvalvik or whether he is citing a different version of the Mishnah.
Louis J Rosen: The print version does have m. Ned. 4:11 but this is an error. The correct reference, cited by Collins, First Corinthians, (see Hvalvik's footnote 87) is m. Ned. 3:11.
Thanks, that appears to be correct. I wonder whether Ned. 4.11 is in the print of Hvalvik (in other words, whether Logos is faithfully presenting the original) or whether it is a Logos typo. (BTW: I sent a typo report anyway)
George Somsel: Louis J Rosen: The print version does have m. Ned. 4:11 but this is an error. The correct reference, cited by Collins, First Corinthians, (see Hvalvik's footnote 87) is m. Ned. 3:11. Thanks, that appears to be correct. I wonder whether Ned. 4.11 is in the print of Hvalvik (in other words, whether Logos is faithfully presenting the original) or whether it is a Logos typo.
Thanks, that appears to be correct. I wonder whether Ned. 4.11 is in the print of Hvalvik (in other words, whether Logos is faithfully presenting the original) or whether it is a Logos typo.
The error is in the print version of Hvalvik. It's still an excellent book.
Glad to be of help, if even in a very small way.
Louis J Rosen:The error is in the print version of Hvalvik. It's still an excellent book.
That's a pity since it means that Logos will not correct it.
It is possible that the site you cite is correct since I didn't read all of the section, only the beginning, and the section in Neusner is in 3.11 I so it's rather far down the page.